This article consists of two studies designed to assess individual differences and potential evaluator bias in sexually violent persons (SVP) evaluations. The first study examines evaluators' assessments of sexual recidivism risk and their likelihood to recommend commitment in hypothetical case vignettes. The vignettes varied the presence/absence of distressing case details, a sexual sadism diagnosis, and level of psychopathic traits, while holding constant other details such as actuarial score, victim type, dynamic risk factors, and offense history. We examined the extent to which the presence or absence of these details influenced ratings of recidivism risk and suitability for commitment and whether evaluator assignment influenced these ratings. The second study examined SVP evaluations in a field setting to determine whether evaluator assignment predicted commitment recommendations even after controlling for other factors (e.g., treatment status, diagnosis, Static-99R score, and level of psychopathy). Both studies found systematic individual differences in evaluator decision making that cannot be accounted for by differences in the underlying case, suggesting evaluator assignment is a significant factor in determining the report conclusions for SVP evaluations. Considerations of the etiology of such evaluator differences, and ways of addressing potential bias in SVP evaluations are discussed.

Several states allow for the civil commitment of individuals as sexually violent persons (SVPs) if they have a mental disorder that predisposes them to future sexual violence. Many SVPs are managed in secure inpatient settings. Some states also permit supervised release (SR) to the community if certain criteria are met. Public opposition to SVPs returning to the community is not uncommon given concerns about risk for sexual reoffending; however, there is limited research about the risk such individuals actually pose. The current study examined outcomes, including sexual recidivism and various types of technical violations, for 205 SVPs on SR in Wisconsin. Over approximately a 2.5-year follow-up, only 1.5% were charged with a sexual offense, though custody events for a violation of any type were relatively common (46.3%). Age predicted time to custody event, but other presumably relevant indicators, including actuarial risk scores and expert opinions regarding client suitability for SR per statutory criteria, did not. Implications for managing SVPs under community supervision settings are discussed.